From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mah@mhorton.net (Mary Ann Horton)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:54:24 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] why does tar have the tape device hard coded into it and
 why is it mt1 instead of mt0
In-Reply-To: <201512120209.tBC2930f007838@coolidge.cs.Dartmouth.EDU>
References: <201512120209.tBC2930f007838@coolidge.cs.Dartmouth.EDU>
Message-ID: <566C6D60.40205@mhorton.net>

Yeah, I just can't imagine using tar with the f option.  Even back in 
the day when I was writing 9 track magtapes with tar, it would be 
something like
     tar cvfb /dev/rmt0 10 .
to get tape blocks bigger than 512 bytes.  But we never had dectapes and 
I think they did their own blocking.

     Mary Ann

On 12/11/2015 06:09 PM, Doug McIlroy wrote:
>> I have no memory of why Ken used mt1 not mt0.   Doug may know.
> I don't know either. Come to think of it, I can't remember ever
> using tar without option -f. Direct machine-to-machine trasfer,
> e.g. by uucp, took a lot of business away from magtape soon
> after tar was introduced. Incidentally, I think tar was written
> by Chuck Haley or Greg Chesson, not Ken.
>
> Doug
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs